Search Box

Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Dershowitz: Does This Deal Prevent Iran From Developing a Nuclear Weapon?

Dershowitz: Does This Deal Prevent Iran From Developing a Nuclear Weapon? (Matzav).By Alan Dershowitz.Does the proposed deal with Iran actually prevent the Mullahs from ever developing a nuclear weapon? Or does it merely delay them for a period of years? That is the key question that has not yet been clearly answered.
In his statement on the deal, President Obama seemed to suggest that Iran will never be
allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. He said that this “long-term deal
with Iran… will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” He then
repeated this assurance: “because of this deal, the international
community will be able to verify that the Islamic Republic of Iran will
not be able to develop a nuclear weapon.” These seemingly categorical
statements were intended to assure the world that President Obama would
keep his earlier promise that Iran will never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

But is that what the deal itself does? Or, as stated by its critics,
does it actually assure that Iran will be allowed to develop a nuclear
arsenal after a short delay of several years? That is the key question
that the Obama administration has refused to answer directly. It must do
so before Congress can be asked to buy a pig in a poke for the American
people.

There is an enormous difference between a deal that merely delays Iran’s development of a nuclear arsenal for a period of years and a deal that prevents Iran from ever developing
a nuclear arsenal. Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel and many other
critics of this deal describe it as merely a delay, while the Obama
administration seems to be suggesting by its rhetoric that the deal will
prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The devil is not so much in the details as in the broad outlines of
this deal and its understanding by the parties. Does it or does it not
allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons after a relatively short
moratorium? Iran certainly seems to believe that it does, Israel
certainly believes that it does, and many in Congress-both Republicans
and Democrats– seem to believe that it does. But the President seems to
be telling the American public and the world that these critics are
wrong: that Iran will never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon under
this deal.

Yet, just a few months ago, he seemed more cautious and candid in
discussing his “fear” that “in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced
centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the
breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.” He also said that
we have assurances of a yearlong breakout time “for at least well over a
decade,” implying that after that indeterminate time frame, the
assurances will no longer be in place.

Obama’s statement, despite its confusing and ambiguous context, has
raised deep concerns among critics of the deal. Moreover, the text of
the deal includes time frames of 8 years, 10 years and 15 years, which
also generates confusion at a time when clarity is essential.

So which is it? Congress has a right to know, and so do the American people. Is it a postponement for an uncertain number of years – 8, 10,
13, 14, 15 – of Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon? Or is it an
assurance that “Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon?”

The Obama administration insists that this is not a “treaty,” but
rather a “deal.” A deal is a contract, and for a contract to be valid
there must be a “meeting of the minds.” But has there been a meeting of
the minds over the central issue of whether this deal allows Iran to
develop a nuclear weapon after a moratorium whose precise time frame is
unclear? And if there has been a meeting of the minds over this issue,
what exactly is it?

Certainly the words of
the Iranians are not the same as the words of President Obama. Whose
words accurately represent the meaning of the contract we are being
asked to sign?

The time has now come to be crystal clear about the meaning of this
deal. If it is intended to prevent Iran from ever developing nuclear
weapons, the President must say so in the clearest of terms and he must
get the Iranians to express agreement with that interpretation.
Ambiguity may be a virtue at the beginning of a negotiation, but it is a
vice in interpreting and implementing a deal with such high stakes.

Recall that President Bill Clinton made similar assurances with
regard to North Korea back in 1994 – as the chart above shows.

But
within a few short years of signing a deal that he assured us would
require the dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear program, that country
tested its first nuclear weapon. It now has a nuclear arsenal. How can
we be sure that Iran will not act in a similar fashion?

The deal with Iran has been aptly characterized as a “leap of faith,”
“a bet” and a “roll of the dice” by David Sanger in a news analysis for
the New York Times. The gamble is that by the time the most restrictive
provisions of the deal expire, Iran will be a different country with
more reasonable leaders. But can the world and especially the nations
most at risk from an Iranian nuclear arsenal, depend on faith, bets and
dice, when they know that the last time the nuclear dice were rolled,
they came up snake-eyes for America and its allies when North Korea
ended up with nuclear weapons.

The burden of persuasion is now on the Obama administration to
demonstrate that President Obama was accurately describing the deal when
he said that it will “prevent” Iran from “obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
It is a heavy burden that will be – and should be – difficult to
satisfy. Hmmm....It did not stop the Norks and it won't stop their BFF Iran.

Egyptian Newspaper Features Two Blood Libel Articles in a Single Day .( Algemeiner ).An Egyptian newspaper featured two articles on Tuesd...

In Memory Of Alexander Munch (1948 - 2012).

Israeli Six-Day War Vet.

Previous Blogs here and here."
If liberty means anything at all, it means
the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." George Orwell.

Comments advice.

Visitors & commenters of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP. Visitors are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation. Comments here are typically unmoderated and unedited. The fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes the site owner's endorsement of commenters' views.

Wafa Sultan .

"Telling the truth after proper investigation is the height of courage." - Wafa Sultan.

Ibn Q. al-Rassooli

I Stand With Israel !

Koran 7:7, where G-d Himself bequeaths the Land of Israel to the Jews, as a nation who thought themselves weak, and blesses them with goodness.Source

Shariah: The Threat to America

This book is based on the statements of the world's leading Shariah authorities and Shariah academic scholars.

The Abuse of Holocaust Memory.

Myths of Islam

"Religion does not require women to veil their hands, feet and faces or enjoin any special type of veil. Tribal custom must not impose itself on the free will of the individual."

Amanullah Khan - King of Afghanistan (1919-1929).

The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, head of Al-Azhar, the highest seat of learning in the Sunni world.“The niqab is a tradition and has nothing to do with Islam,” said Sheikh Tantawi, vowing to ban it in Al-Azhar schools.After the girl complied he insisted she should not wear it any more.“I tell you again that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam and it is only a mere custom. I understand the religion better than you and your parents.” The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar imam vowed to issue a ban against the face-veil in all schools linked to Al-Azhar.“Source

The Jewish Holocaust.

The Armenian Holocaust.

Fair Use Notice

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/copyright.act.chapt1b.html & http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.No infringement intended. This blog is for educational and information purposes only.